Erlanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,693
SkyWest Funding of SAPA
Plaintiffs contend that SkyWest’s 100 percent funding of SAPA violates the
RLA’s prohibition on using “the funds of the carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining . . . .” 45 U.S.C. §152, Fourth. In Barthelemy, the Ninth Circuit explained the prohibition:
Obviously, the line between cooperation and support is not an obvious one.
Permissible cooperation becomes prohibited support once the union’s
independence is compromised. This is a subjective inquiry: the question is
whether the assistance provided the union is in fact depriving employees
their freedom of choice. It is not the potential for but the reality of
domination that these statutes are intended to prevent.
Barthelemy, 897 F.2d at 1016. The Ninth Circuit identified four factors relevant to deciding whether company financial support has stifled employee free choice: (1) whether the employer assistance occurred in response to an outside effort to organize, (2) evidence of the union becoming beholden to the employer, (3) employee approval of agreements between the
union and employer, and (4) whether the employer assistance is sustained or simply a onetime payment. 897 F.2d at 1017.
Plaintiffs have not subjectively demonstrated that SkyWest’s 100 percent funding of SAPA has deprived the pilots of their freedom of choice. First, SAPA was not created in response to any outside effort to organize. Even if the Court does accept the hearsay evidence that SAPA was altered in direct response to a previous ALPA campaign, a modification of a group’s practices in response to employees’ desires after a failed campaign does not raise the same concerns as creating an entirely new organization to quell support for
a union during a campaign. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to infer that SAPA must be beholden to SkyWest because of its funding without producing any evidence that SAPA actually has altered its practices or demands in response to management influence. Finally, pilots vote on and approve the agreements SAPA enters into with SkyWest, and the pilots even refused to ratify one agreement without certain modification. Moreover, the President
of SAPA is an ALPA supporter and the record reflects that the relative merits of ALPA versus SAPA are actively debated at SAPA Board meetings.
On the other hand, SkyWest’s unlimited funding of SAPA appears, on its face, to violate the RLA and SkyWest does not contend that there are any cases in the courts or even the NMB that have placed their blessing on such unfettered financial support.
In any event, assuming, without deciding, that SkyWest’s complete and unlimited funding of SAPA violates RLA section 2, Fourth, the Court finds that the balance of hardships strongly counsels in favor of denying a preliminary injunction prohibiting such funding. SAPA has represented the pilots and been fully funded by SkyWest for over ten years without legal challenge. Though the length of SAPA’s existence is not relevant to whether the funding is lawful, it does speak to the amount of “irreparable” harm Plaintiffs
will suffer without a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ challenge could have been brought at any time during these past ten years; nothing of significance has changed. Also, given that the Organizing Committee had been campaigning for well over a year before seeking a preliminary injunction, it is unreasonable to grant the requested relief without the benefit of a
full record. Moreover, SAPA serves several important administrative functions for SkyWest and its pilots, such as facilitating the FAA amnesty program and addressing employee complaints about pay errors and other issues. By prohibiting all SkyWest funding of SAPA, a preliminary injunction would threaten the completion of these activities which would harm both the airline and its pilots.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SkyWest, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with Defendant, pending a final ruling by the Court on the merits:
1) Are enjoined from prohibiting SkyWest pilots from wearing the dark blue ALPA lanyard with white lettering, and
2) Are enjoined from interfering with SkyWest pilots’ oral communications with
fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign in non-work areas and on non-work time, and from interfering with SkyWest pilots’ communication with fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign through distribution of ALPA-related materials in non-work areas such as bulletin boards and crew lounges.
All other claims for preliminary injunction are denied.
Plaintiffs contend that SkyWest’s 100 percent funding of SAPA violates the
RLA’s prohibition on using “the funds of the carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining . . . .” 45 U.S.C. §152, Fourth. In Barthelemy, the Ninth Circuit explained the prohibition:
Obviously, the line between cooperation and support is not an obvious one.
Permissible cooperation becomes prohibited support once the union’s
independence is compromised. This is a subjective inquiry: the question is
whether the assistance provided the union is in fact depriving employees
their freedom of choice. It is not the potential for but the reality of
domination that these statutes are intended to prevent.
Barthelemy, 897 F.2d at 1016. The Ninth Circuit identified four factors relevant to deciding whether company financial support has stifled employee free choice: (1) whether the employer assistance occurred in response to an outside effort to organize, (2) evidence of the union becoming beholden to the employer, (3) employee approval of agreements between the
union and employer, and (4) whether the employer assistance is sustained or simply a onetime payment. 897 F.2d at 1017.
Plaintiffs have not subjectively demonstrated that SkyWest’s 100 percent funding of SAPA has deprived the pilots of their freedom of choice. First, SAPA was not created in response to any outside effort to organize. Even if the Court does accept the hearsay evidence that SAPA was altered in direct response to a previous ALPA campaign, a modification of a group’s practices in response to employees’ desires after a failed campaign does not raise the same concerns as creating an entirely new organization to quell support for
a union during a campaign. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to infer that SAPA must be beholden to SkyWest because of its funding without producing any evidence that SAPA actually has altered its practices or demands in response to management influence. Finally, pilots vote on and approve the agreements SAPA enters into with SkyWest, and the pilots even refused to ratify one agreement without certain modification. Moreover, the President
of SAPA is an ALPA supporter and the record reflects that the relative merits of ALPA versus SAPA are actively debated at SAPA Board meetings.
On the other hand, SkyWest’s unlimited funding of SAPA appears, on its face, to violate the RLA and SkyWest does not contend that there are any cases in the courts or even the NMB that have placed their blessing on such unfettered financial support.
In any event, assuming, without deciding, that SkyWest’s complete and unlimited funding of SAPA violates RLA section 2, Fourth, the Court finds that the balance of hardships strongly counsels in favor of denying a preliminary injunction prohibiting such funding. SAPA has represented the pilots and been fully funded by SkyWest for over ten years without legal challenge. Though the length of SAPA’s existence is not relevant to whether the funding is lawful, it does speak to the amount of “irreparable” harm Plaintiffs
will suffer without a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ challenge could have been brought at any time during these past ten years; nothing of significance has changed. Also, given that the Organizing Committee had been campaigning for well over a year before seeking a preliminary injunction, it is unreasonable to grant the requested relief without the benefit of a
full record. Moreover, SAPA serves several important administrative functions for SkyWest and its pilots, such as facilitating the FAA amnesty program and addressing employee complaints about pay errors and other issues. By prohibiting all SkyWest funding of SAPA, a preliminary injunction would threaten the completion of these activities which would harm both the airline and its pilots.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SkyWest, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with Defendant, pending a final ruling by the Court on the merits:
1) Are enjoined from prohibiting SkyWest pilots from wearing the dark blue ALPA lanyard with white lettering, and
2) Are enjoined from interfering with SkyWest pilots’ oral communications with
fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign in non-work areas and on non-work time, and from interfering with SkyWest pilots’ communication with fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign through distribution of ALPA-related materials in non-work areas such as bulletin boards and crew lounges.
All other claims for preliminary injunction are denied.
Last edited:
